Film vs. digital - viewfinders

I am looking into digital SLRs myself. Currently the only digital cameras
I'm really interested in are the all-in-ones. The full SLRs are still silly
money plus it strikes me that when the next generation of dSLRs comes out,
next year, the current crop will drop in price.

In terms of the Terminator-style viewfinder, it is alleged that better
viewfinders would use more power. I'm not entirely convinced by that
argument.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

I am looking into digital SLRs myself. Currently the only digital cameras
I'm really interested in are the all-in-ones. The full SLRs are still silly
money plus it strikes me that when the next generation of dSLRs comes out,
next year, the current crop will drop in price.

In terms of the Terminator-style viewfinder, it is alleged that better
viewfinders would use more power. I'm not entirely convinced by that
argument.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital
cameras that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old
Minolta XG-7 SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when
they showed what the world looked like through its eyes.

The dSLR viewfinders are similar to their film brethren, although sometimes
they show a smaller view (much lower magnification for the same angle of
view lens). The low end dSLRs don't have interchangeable screens so you're
stuck with plain matt with no focus assist.

The consumer cameras often have either swing out LCDs or swivel bodies, so
you can do ground level or overhead shots easily. Some people like that.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed
shutter response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to
find it is out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an
issue with DSLR's?

No. The dSLRs act pretty much like their film brethren in AF speed and
shutter lag.

I find the 300D (and corresponding Canon Rebel/Kiss film models) AF to be
quite amazingly zippy. But coming from MF, I'm easy to please on that
accountg. Still, my impression is that the recent AF systems on even the
low end (d)SLRs are a lot better than SLR AF systems used to be, so you
might be pleasantly surprised.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital
cameras that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old
Minolta XG-7 SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when
they showed what the world looked like through its eyes.
Electronic Viewfinders (or EVF). They are passable in good light, but
usually lack sufficient detail to be any good for manual focus. They also
become near useless in low light situations. real DSLR's have a real
viewscreen the same way that a film SLR does. If they didn't they would just
be SL's not SLR's.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed
shutter response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to
find it is out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an
issue with DSLR's?
No more so than it is with film SLR's. Response time is almost instant,
using it on MF speeds the process. Even low-end digitals can have their
response time improved greatly if you half-press the shutter prior to taking
the photo. half-pressing lets the camera focus, measure light, and charge
the flash, so that when you finish pressing the shutter it can take the
photo almost immediately. Pretty much all digitals that I have used have no
annoying delay if you take this step, yet some of them can take a full
second or more to take the photo if you just press the shutter in one
action.

Unless I am out of auto shutter speed range, I know my XG-7 will fire
when I tell it to!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:03:30 -0500, richardsfault wrote:


I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital cameras
that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old Minolta XG-7
SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when they
showed what the world looked like through its eyes.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed shutter
response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to find it is
out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an issue with
DSLR's?

Unless I am out of auto shutter speed range, I know my XG-7 will fire when
I tell it to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com

There's nothing wrong with digital photography, but a common misconception
amongst the general layman is that it will totally replace 35mm film
because it is so convenient.

I'm not so sure I agree, and I was previously a full on digital die hard.

The reasons for my turn around in opinion are two-fold. Firstly, when I
started shooting digital my prints suddenly stopped getting made. Where
previously I had a roll processed and printed at least once a week, I
suddenly found myself only printing from digital CD once or twice a year.

This has to do with the fact that shooting digital requires a lot more
work after the fact than with 35mm film. You have to download the images,
fix them up the way you want them (and you had better have a damn good
monitor), decided which ones to burn onto the CD, burn the CD and then
take it to the lab. My local labs have gotten into the habit of charging
more for prints made from CD (I think they are trying to make up for the
loss in processing revenue, plus the fact that fewer and fewer prints are
being made).

Secondly, I find that while digital shines in certain photographic
applications, like the studio, it looks positively "fake" in a lot of
other situations, specifically sports photography, where over-saturation
and over-sharpening give it away everytime. Of course there is also the
fact that you can't enlarge a hell of a lot.

--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:03:30 -0500, richardsfault wrote:


I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital cameras
that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old Minolta XG-7
SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when they
showed what the world looked like through its eyes.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed shutter
response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to find it is
out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an issue with
DSLR's?

Unless I am out of auto shutter speed range, I know my XG-7 will fire when
I tell it to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com

There's nothing wrong with digital photography, but a common misconception
amongst the general layman is that it will totally replace 35mm film
because it is so convenient.

I'm not so sure I agree, and I was previously a full on digital die hard.

The reasons for my turn around in opinion are two-fold. Firstly, when I
started shooting digital my prints suddenly stopped getting made. Where
previously I had a roll processed and printed at least once a week, I
suddenly found myself only printing from digital CD once or twice a year.

This has to do with the fact that shooting digital requires a lot more
work after the fact than with 35mm film. You have to download the images,
fix them up the way you want them (and you had better have a damn good
monitor), decided which ones to burn onto the CD, burn the CD and then
take it to the lab. My local labs have gotten into the habit of charging
more for prints made from CD (I think they are trying to make up for the
loss in processing revenue, plus the fact that fewer and fewer prints are
being made).

Secondly, I find that while digital shines in certain photographic
applications, like the studio, it looks positively "fake" in a lot of
other situations, specifically sports photography, where over-saturation
and over-sharpening give it away everytime. Of course there is also the
fact that you can't enlarge a hell of a lot.

--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.

if you half-press the shutter prior to taking
the photo. half-pressing lets the camera focus, measure light, and charge
the flash, so that when you finish pressing the shutter it can take the
photo almost immediately.

I have been told this before, but it is easy to forget in the heat of
the moment! That is never an issue with manual-focus film cameras
which I am familiar with. I have never used an AF film camera to any
great extent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com